Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippery Jack  Yeah I have to defend myself frequently about that one  I think it's a fascinating experiment, and I find a peverse enjoyment in the compare/contrast with the original. Plus the supporting cast is excellent (Macy, Forster, Baker Hall, Mortensen, Ron Howards dad...), and I like the varying degrees to which the different actors chose to imitate their 1960 counterparts. The ultra-vibrant Christopher Doyle cinematogtraphy is stunning, and the set/costume design is top notch (it's kind of design porn for me  ). Oh yeah, and Danny Elfman's super crisp recording of the classic score sounds ace. Yup, that's what I like about it  . . . |
I can't actually argue with much of that to be honest; they are all things I was intrigued by in the remake. The end result still doesn't justify it for me though. As an experiment rather than an artistic statement the film is interesting. But still, what's the point y'know?